So now we hit the benchmarks, where we can really see where the SU3500 falls in comparison to the Atom N450 and the SU4100/SU7300. Does the added clock speed make any difference, and how much does it get hurt by the lack of both Hyper-Threading and a second core?

If you looking at the PCMark benchmarks, the answer is quite a bit. It gets hammered by being a single thread, single-core processor—it’s down 800 points in PCMark05 and a staggering 1300 points in PCMark Vantage compared to its Core 2 Duo brother, the 1810T. Even the Eee 1201N beats it in both benchmarks (though not by much) and that's just an ION netbook with a dual-core Atom. It’s worth noting that the ION part doesn’t make much of a difference in PCMark (based on results of the HP Mini 311), and that even the basic N450 netbooks actually aren’t that far off in either PCMark test. I’m going to put this down to the Hyper-Threading that the Atom relies on. The PCMark results seem to suggest that the Core 2 Solo is closer to the Atom performance class than the real notebook class.

Now if we look at single-threaded benchmark and application performance, we see that even with just one logic processor, the Core 2 architecture will still blow Atom out of the water; it’s just useless for multithreaded benchmarks. In Cinebench R10 (single CPU only; we've used the same score in the multi-core chart) the 1410 absolutely wipes the floor with Atom, and because of the higher 1.40GHz clock speed it actually outdoes its dual-core brethren as well. What’s interesting to note is that the 1410’s single CPU result is faster than the Eee 1201N’s multi-CPU result, which really shows the horsepower difference between the Core 2 and Atom architectures. Peacekeeper paints much the same picture, with the 1410 obliterating Atom and slightly outperforming the SU7300/SU4100 machines.

The HD x264 encoding test is another multithreaded benchmark, and again, the SU3500 gets hammered. It’s not significantly faster than the netbooks, and it's waaay behind the dual-core CULV systems. With that said, if you’re depending on a $400, 3.1lb ultraportable for media encoding purposes, maybe you’re looking at the wrong types of computers.

3DMark results show us that, yes, GMA 4500MHD, though a huge improvement over the packaged-into-Atom GMA 3150, is still a pretty useless gaming chip. But hey, at least it breaks the 200 mark in 3DMark06. Really, the 4500MHD is best for games released in the 3DMark03 time frame. The 1410 is in the same range as the other CULV/GMA machines, though the dual-core processors likely helped the others in the CPU tests. Fair enough.

What I would wager is that the 1410 will be slightly faster in whatever old titles you can manage to play on any of these systems due to the higher CPU clock speed. GMA 4500MHD isn’t going to be playing any newish titles, and without a CD drive it’s going to be a pain to get your games onto the system anyways. (We'd suggest Steam or GOG.com as easy, legal ways to put games on the 1410). Just don’t hope for a great gaming experience if you do make the effort.

16 Comments

There seem to be quite a few versions of this notebook out there. Seems like you've got the same version as me (sans BT). You from the UK too?

I'm assuming that this is an American only version, like the other duel core version of the 1410 that was knocking about a while ago. Is it really that hard to give products clearer/more distinct product numbers/designations?Reply

I thought Anandtech decided to get away from these synthetic benchmarks. I know these Intel graphics are still crap, but I'd rather get an fps score from WoW with medium or low details, because that's something that actually tells whether this laptop may be used for some gaming in a pinch.Reply

Hey Guys - If you like the Aspire 1410 please check the Lenovo x100e in some time. It also has a 1366 x 768 Pixel Screen on 11,6" and it is non Glossy. Also It´s capable of 1080p Full HD YouTube Playback.

Its an AMD Based Plattform with the "MV-40" - also seen before in an EEE PC. Performance therefore is quite similar of course. The Main Advantage is the good Quality of Screen, Keyboard and Chasis for a low price - here in Germany 400€ incl. tax (19%) - would mean about 430$ I think.

You get a Single Core AMD Processor @ 1,60 Ghz (which can be undervolted for powersaving quite a bit), 2 Memory Slots for up to 4GB RAM and the - quite strong - HD3200 IGP. There are 3 USB Ports, a Cardreader and a VGA Port - unfortunately no HDMI

I bought it for myself a few weeks ago and use it every day. Battery Life is depending on use and varies for me between 3 and 8 hours, but haven´t checked with a testing tool jet.Reply

Anandtech reviewed a system with an MV-40 a while back, and performance was really quite poor. Oh sure, it was faster than Atom, but as this article shows beating Atom is nothing to be proud about. It's particularly not worth boasting over when you can only last 1/3 as long in battery life. There are a few reviews of the x100e out there, and the consensus is that with the 6-cell battery you shouldn't expect more than 5 hours at best. More likely 3-4.

If you think the 1410 is only mediocre at 5-7 hours (internet to idle), the x100e would be far worse. $450 isn't a horrible price, and Lenovo's build quality can't possibly be as bad as Acer, but the lack of HDMI makes it a no-go for portable HTPC and AMD's HD 4200 (3200?) isn't fit for gaming either. It would probably handle HD YouTube a bit better than the Acer.

Personally, I wouldn't get a laptop that can't last at least 6 hours on a charge when brand new -- preferably 8+. A year down the road and you might still be able to get 5-6 hours out of it.Reply

MV-40 doesn't compare very favorably to any of the Intel CULV processors, even the SU3500. The dual-core Athlon Neo L335, though, is mostly comparable to a Celeron SU2300 (but performs slightly worse).

I've seen overclocked Atom N270s get higher passmark scores than the MV-40...Reply

It's not quite the same, as MSI tossed in an HD 4330 instead of going with discrete graphics, but that just means performance with a normal MV-40 (in gaming) will be lower than the X610. Battery life on the other hand should improve somewhat, but it's still going to be a big step down from CULV battery life.Reply

I have been reading about how CULV's essentially negate any use of a 'netbook' for a year now and unfortunately I'm still not sold.

I had a eeepc 8.9" a while back and I upgrade to a HP mini 311 (ION) last year and I haven't looked back. And even after reading this article I still see no compelling reason to jump ship. I paid less than $400 for the mini 6, 7 almost 8 months ago?? it has a 1366/768 screen, It can do light gaming and multi-media leaps and bounds better than this acer. Infact the only area's this CULV is substantially better than the ATOM is in isolated cpu benchmarks.

I'm not saying the atom is all that and the kitchen sink, its sloooow but I am saying the atom + ION is just amazing for what you pay for. My mini has become my primary laptop. It is my mobile office. It does office apps/internet, hdmi video outs 1080p to my tv and plays fallout3. This acer is costs the same is 7-8 months newer tech and still can't do that. Battery life aside (which is only marginally better)

I feel that your comments directed at non-ION netbooks (as you mentioned) are spot on. But some people are just excited about a sub $300 tiny, internet thingy.

Nvidia really stirred things up with the ION, they essentially created another class of ultra portable. The ION graphics allow the atom to perform higher than any IGP intel has by far. If I could find a CULV + ION that would be a different story, of course now its going to cost another $50-70? so now we are almost at $500, and back into 'real' laptop territory with better graphics.

I felt at the time that a ION + ATOM was the sweet spot for "trying to pack it all into the smallest cheapest package" And it still looks like it is. Reply

I looked at this notebook last month when the 9 month old replacement battery on my 12.1 Dell Latitude D410 died and I didn't want to shell out $60-70 every 9 months on such an old machine.

My decision was basically down to either the AS1410 or eeePC 1001p. I chose the 1001p for a number of reasons including the high-contrast matte display (though lower resolution), lighter weight, smaller form-factor, lower cost (I got the $295 model), and better battery-life. The main advantages of the AS1410 were the higher resolution (but lower contrast, poorer viewing angle) display, faster processor, and HDMI out.

I don't have an HDTV and my desktop monitor has it's digital input hooked to my desktop full time so that makes the HDMI out less of a bonus. I'm very reticent to have a glossy display on a mobile computer as I do sometimes use them in situations that would cause a lot of glare and I value a good contrast ratio (something my old Dell was seriously lacking). Battery life was a big sticking point for me since I don't want to have to carry a power adapter with me all the time as I'd had to do with the Dell seriously limiting it's portability.

In day-to-day use I notice that in situations requiring a lot of CPU horsepower the 1001p's N450 setup is slower than the old Dell, but in most everyday tasks like quickly switching between many applications the HT (SMT if you prefer) of the Atom seems to make the experience more fluid and snappy which counts for a lot. One annoyance is the glossy bezel and trackpad button; everything else on the 1001p is matte or patterned so the glossy on those pieces (where you'd least want glossy) is pretty frustrating, the trackpad button has a silver mirror finish that would be excellent for gathering fingerprints for forensic evidence. I do enjoy the multitouch gestures and tend to use "tap-to-click" on the trackpad.

In the end I'm glad I went for the 1001p and don't think the benefits and tradeoffs of the AS1410 make it worth the extra $100 (30%).Reply